DRAFT Report Fiji Islands Country Profile on Excluded Groups

For UN ESCAP
by Vijay Naidu,

University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

July, 2009, Suva, Fiji.

A well established Squatter settlement, the Jittu Estate in Suva, Fijis capital

CONTENTS

1.0 1.1 1.2 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.0

Introduction The Project The Fiji Islands Country Context Exclusionary Processes
Geography as a basis for exclusion

Squatter Settlements Discrimination in the Public Domain and Ethnicity Economic Processes and Disadvantage Socio-Cultural Factors Status of Excluded Groups 4.1 The Disadvantaged and Excluded in Fiji 4.2 The Poor 4.3 Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Commoners. 4.4 Women 4.5 Children, Youth and the Elderly 4.6 Disable People 4.7 Sexual Minorities Policy responses to address identified forms of exclusion Triggers and Processes of Social Exclusion Relevance of Selected Indicators Accounting for Exclusion Efficacy of Policy Responses Recommendations to Refining Policies and Conclusion

5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 7. 0

UN ESCAP began a Development Account project Interregional Cooperation to Strengthen Social Inclusion, Gender Equality and Health Promotion in the MDG Process to strengthen social inclusion, gender equality and health promotion in the MDGs. The project sought to identify and address key barriers to equal opportunity so as to achieve stronger development outcomes. The project objectives were designed to: # Document existing information on vulnerable groups in national contexts and the manifestations, triggers and processes of exclusion; highlight differential disadvantages of women and men for each identified vulnerable group and examine the gender dimension of their exclusion. # Examine policy responses to address these identified forms of exclusion; # Examine the relevance of the selected indicators in capturing these forms of exclusion as well as measuring policy responses to them, with recommendations to refine them if necessary. This Fiji Islands Country Profile on Excluded Groups is based largely on secondary source materials such as ADB report on Poverty and Hardship in Pacific Island Countries, UN Human Development Reports, Fiji Government Report on MDGs, Poverty and Household Income and Expenditure Reports, Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics information and census reports, annual reports of ministries of education, health, social welfare, women and youth as well as the published works of researchers. Very limited primary research was conducted and this was mainly by way of interviewing academics, .government department officials and NGO representatives working with excluded groups. On the basis of information garnered from the above sources , this report documents the status of disadvantaged groups in Fiji, the triggers and processes of exclusion, policy responses to address identified forms of exclusion, the relevance of selected indicators in accounting these forms of exclusion, the efficacy of policy responses, and recommendations to refine them where necessary. 1.2 The Fiji Islands Fiji is an archipelagic state comprising more than 300 islands, 100 of them inhabited but with the biggest concentration on the largest island of Viti Levu which has about 80 percent of the total population (see map below). Its 837,271 people comprise 475,739 indigenous Fijians1, 313,798 Indo-Fijians2 and 47,734 persons of Chinese, European, mixed race, Rotuman, Pacific islands, and expatriates of various nationalities (FIBS, 2008)3. Close to 60 per cent of the population is below 30 years. The country is multiethnic and multi-religious. It has experienced significant internal movements of people
Largely of Melanesian origins with an admixture of Polynesian influence. Rotumans are Polynesians from Rotuma which is a small group of islands 500 kilometres north of Fiji. 2 Descendants of Indian indentured labourers. 3 Hitherto lumped together as Others for political and administrative purposes.
1

from rural to urban areas and from the outer islands to the main island as well as emigration to Pacific rim countries. Four military coups and accompanying political instability as well as ethnic discrimination have been push factors in the out migration of Fiji people. In recent years remittances have become a major exchange earner and contributor to poverty reduction. Map of the Fiji Islands

More than 90 percent of the land belongs to indigenous Fijians with close to 88 percent under customary tenure; freehold land comprises 7 percent and the remainder belongs to the state. Most of Fijis terrestrial and inshore marine resources are owned by customary owners. While the predominance of customary ownership alleviates inequality and poverty among land and resource owning groups, for those who do not own or control such resources, access and security of tenure have posed significant challenge in recent times. Landlessness affects both indigenous and non-indigenous communities and is a factor in deprivation and exclusion4. Customary or communal ownership does not mean equality of access and control.
Indigenous or ethnic Fijians are referred to as I Taukei or owners of the land giving the impression that all of them own and/or control some land. This is not the case in reality as there has been massive migration
4

Fijis economy is based on tourism, commercial agriculture (mainly sugar cane), fisheries, hard wood and pine timber and gold mining. GDP per capita was US$5440 in 2002. It is a lower middle income country but with declining HDI. It is ranked 103rd out of 179 countries having fallen from 72nd position in 2002 and 44 in 1996. Inequality and poverty are obvious features of contemporary Fiji society. 2.0 Country Context Britain ruled Fiji for 96 years. The nature of British colonialism and accompanying economic policies resulted in an ethnically divided, primary commodity producing country where foreign, largely Australian capital predominated. As in most other British colonies there was a hierarchy of race and colour with white people and lighter skinned persons higher on the social ladder compared to darker skinned people. Indigenous Fijian chiefs from the eastern parts of the country were given special privileges for their cooperation in a system of indirect rule. Melanesian labourers5 and Indian and IndoFijian labourers and farmers together with commoner Fijians were in the bottom rung. A racial division of labour prevailed in the economy which reflected the socio-political ranking of the colonys people. On the ever of the countrys independence, Fisks (1970) characterization of the racial standing of the three categories of the population provides a caricature of the economic and political hierarchy that emerged but it has limited use because it fails to capture the complexity and dynamism of late colonial and post-colonial social arrangements. According to Fisk economically European and Chinese Fijians were dominant, followed by Indo-Fijians and in the bottom of the pile were indigenous Fijians. Politically, the latter were predominant, followed by European and Chinese with Indo-Fijians constituting the least powerful group. A more nuanced standpoint would be that a small group of Indo-Fijian businessmen, large farmers and professionals had joined the European and Chinese at the apex of the economy. To this group must be added indigenous Fijian chiefs who own and control land in areas of commercial activities such as agriculture and tourism. Chiefs and other ethnic Fijians who were and are senior civil servants and politicians a bureaucratic bourgeoisie joined the upper echelons of society. It also needs to be pointed out that the largest business houses, banks, plantations and tourist resorts were and are owned and operated by foreign corporate interests. Politically, economic power accompanied political power. Although Europeans were a minority of less than 2 percent of the population, they had parity of representation with indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians. And prominent business people of Indian ethnicity had some influence in government in late colonial period which increased in the postamong them (especially from the so called maritime provinces) to the main island where only a few may own free hold land or be leaseholders. A good proportion resides on insecure customarily arranged leased land. 5 Although Indigenous or Ethnic Fijians are themselves largely of Melanesian stock, they differentiate themselves from Melanesian labourers who were brought to establish and labour in the coconut, cotton, banana and sugar cane plantations by European settlers in the late 19th century.

colonial era. The least politically influential class comprised commoner indigenous Fijian peasantry, Indo-Fijian labourers and peasants, Melanesian and other Pacific Islander minorities and mixed race people. By the time Fiji became independent, mixed race and Chinese were merged in a general elector category with Europeans to ensure that the latters politically privileged position was maintained6. Fiji has undergone several social changes that are worthy of flagging. First, over the last 20 years, the countrys population has become urbanized with as much as 60 percent living in urban and peri-urban areas. This means that the former racially segregated residential patterns are becoming less marked, although the exclusive indigenous Fijian villages and scattered Indo-Fijian settlements continue to be a feature of rural areas. Second, the racial hierarchy so obvious in colonial and early post-colonial times is now not so obvious, although vestiges continue to exist both socially and psychologically. Third, the rather marked distinction between the high-born chiefly class and commoners has become less stark with more and more of the latter becoming educated, economically independent and socially mobile. Fourth, among Indo-Fijians a positive outcome of their ancestors traversing thousands of kilometers of ocean to work as indentured labourers is that the caste system has almost completely disappeared. Socio-economic status determines ones status in society rather than the accident of birth into a caste. Fifth, while race or ethnicity continues to be a significant factor in national politics, there are numerous multi-ethnic institutions. This especially applies to civil society organizations and NGOs. Seventh, over the last 30 years significant gains have been made by women in education, employment and social status, but gender inequality remains a challenge. This extends to widespread incidents of violence against women and children7. 3.0 Exclusionary Processes Historically, as in other post-colonial states uneven development of people and places characterized Fiji. Colonial capitalism centred around the administrative capital and other centres of administration as well as in areas of commercial economic activities such as sugar cane farming and sugar milling, gold mining, and in the later years, tourism. In the contemporary period there are a number of obvious spatial, institutional and inter-group process- related reasons for the exclusion of certain groups and categories and which advantage others. Besides geography, these factors can be divided into political, economic and socio-cultural factors. 3.1 Geography as a basis for exclusion Poverty has no geographical boundaries, it is present in rural areas and it is found in urban and peri-urban areas. The 2007 population census has revealed that for the first time there are more people living in urban areas compared to rural areas. Rural stagnation and relative deprivation have driven people out of the hinterlands and outer islands. The lack of infrastructure, safe water, health services and good schools together with
6 7

For Fijis history and political development see Lal (1992) and Sutherland (1992). See Fiji Womens Crisis Centre Discussion Papers at http://www.fijiwomen.com/index.php/discussionpapers

opportunities to better ones lot economically have been push factors. Most rural indigenous villages have experienced significant depopulation with the departure of able bodied young men and women to centres of economic activities and employment opportunities. This has meant that a disproportionate number of elderly and the very young remain in such villages creating a large dependent population on those who are able to work. In certain rural regions of Fiji, poverty levels are especially high as there are very few opportunities to earn cash incomes. These include the provinces of Lau, Bua and Namosi and remote inland areas of the bigger islands. In terms of geography, there is the usual rural-urban divide with people living in rural areas, especially those that are remote being deprived of services and opportunities. These areas include virtually all the outer islands meaning those other than Viti Levu (with the exception of islands that have tourist resorts or are owned by expatriate individuals (often international celebrities) or companies), and the interior regions of the two largest islands. Rural livelihoods have been seriously affected by declining commodity prices for coconut products such as copra and coconut oil and sugar. The mining and quarrying sector has declined steeply with the closure of the gold mine in Vatukoula8. Summary of sectoral performances in 2007 Agr, Forestry, Fishing and subsistence- decl 5.7% Mining and Quarryingdecl by 97.9% Manufacturing sectorgrew by 0.2% Electricity and water sector- grew by 0.4% Construction sector- decline by 20.6% Wholesale, retail trade, hotels, restaurants- decl 5% Transport and communication- decline by 4% Finance insurance, real estate and business services- decl by 1.8% Community, social and personal services- grew by 1.9% Source: Prasad, 2008. Infrastructural difficulties such as limited or non-existent shipping services, air transportation, communication, roads, and electricity affect impede the development of rural places. Indigenous Fijians are the most dispersed people and therefore are mainly affected by the limited infrastructural and other services. Government offices, the best public hospitals and private medical clinics, schools and tertiary educational institutions as well as opportunities for employment outside the primary sector are to be found in the main island of Viti Levu. Public utilities such as electricity, tap water and tar-sealed roads as well as wharves and airports are located on this island. These services and opportunities are in urban areas, and especially in or near the capital city of Suva. Rural poverty in the form of poverty of opportunity and cash poverty is widespread with Vanua Levu (the Northern Division and the countrys
8

The gold mine has reopened under a different corporate owner.

second largest island) being most affected (discussed under The Poor). Rural areas are generally speaking places of neglect and depressed economic conditions. It is therefore little wonder that people have been moving to urban centres. Internal migration in the country has boosted the population of this largest island to around 80 percent of the countrys total inhabitants. A good proportion of the most recent migrants reside in squatter settlements as government has failed to adequately respond to the growing demand for affordable housing and access to land.

Since 1997, the expiry of agricultural land leases and the decision by the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) and landowners not to renew a great many of these farm leases, Indo-Fijian farmers and their families have been compelled to seek alternative livelihoods and places to reside. A good number have swelled the squatter or shanty town population around Fijis urban areas. The following table (Table 1) gives the annual number of leases that have and will be expiring under the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act (ALTA) from 1997. Table 1: Figures for the expiry of all ALTA leases from 1997-2016: Year Leases Year 1997 100 2008 1998 214 2009 1999 1554 2010 2000 1976 2011 2001 473 2012 2002 682 2013 2003 507 2014 2004 353 2015 2005 355 2016 2006 493 2007 812 TOTAL Source: NLTB, 2007 (Cited in Barr, 2007). The expiry of ALTA leases which were extended for 20-30 year periods in the mid-1970s has affected primarily sugar cane farmers, a majority of whom eked out a living on 10 acre allotments. On average a farmer has a family of 5 persons but there are many three generation households with 6 or more persons. So every farmer whose lease is not renewed there is on average 4 to 5 other persons affected. Further landless farm labourers and cane cutters and their families are adversely affected when groups of farmers are compelled to leave a locality. Leases 356 326 453 369 378 448 327 717 299 11,192

The situation of landless agricultural labourers such as sugar cane cutters, coconut plantation labourers and agricultural labourers generally is especially difficult. Persistent poverty among them and their families has been inter-generational and it is very difficult for them to break out of the poverty trap. 3.2 Squatter Settlements Recent studies have shown that squatter settlements or shanty towns have mushroomed in urban and peri-urban areas (See box below). Some 12 per cent of the population of the country resides in such settlements and the numbers are growing. If the vakavanua or customary arrangements that have facilitated indigenous migrant settlements in resident land owing group lands are included then more than 30 per cent of the countrys people have no long term legal residential security. 1999 2001 2003 2004 46,155 people living in 106 squatter settlements 51,925 people living in 121 squatter settlements 68,625 people living in 171 squatter settlements 82,350 people living in 182 squatter settlements

Source: Barr, 2007. Social inequality is reflected in residential inequality and by the substandard makeshift shelters that pass for homes for the residents of these settlements. A clear majority of squatters are poor. Informal settlements are only one aspect of urban poverty, for it is also scattered throughout Fijis towns in overcrowded flats, house-girl quarters and backyard shacks. Yet these settlements are the most readily observable element of urban change and a useful gauge of general urban poverty (Chung, 2006, 12). Few of them hold secure jobs and most of them are reliant on self employment in the informal sector. Men may do casual work as cleaners, gardeners, grass cutters, unskilled labourers, wheel barrow boys, shoe shine boys, street vendors, bottle collectors, taxi drivers as well as engage in activities that are illegal such as selling drugs. Women may work in garment factories, in retail outlets, as domestic workers, or engage in self employment producing items of clothing, snacks and food for sale. It is from low cost housing areas and squatter settlements that young women are recruited into the sex industry. As the areas in which these settlements are located are on marginal lands - low lying, marshy and often near mangrove swamps - the physical conditions are less than hygienic. The unhealthy environment is compounded by the absence of proper latrines and garbage disposal. Periodic flooding as a result of heavy rains and very high tides or both aggravates conditions. It is little wonder that residents of squatter settlements suffer infectious and reportorial diseases and are generally prone to ill health. Skin diseases including scabies especially among children are common place. For poor families in these settlements life is a

constant struggle for survival. Accessing health services and keeping children in school are major challenges. 3.3 Discrimination in the Public Domain and Ethnicity Politically, Fijis politico-administrative system and the very nature of the state are discriminatory and exclusive. Race and gender have been used for differential treatment of citizens in the public domain. Since the 1987 coups, the state has been ethnicised to the point that more than 90 percent of the senior most positions are held by indigenous Fijians, and up to 70 percent of civil servants are of this ethnicity. The Republic of (previously royal) Fiji Military Force (RFMF) which used to underwrite chiefly power is 99 percent ethnic Fijian and predominantly a male institution. There is also a separate Fijian Administration that provides segregated administrative and local government services for indigenous Fijians. A Ministry of Multi-ethnic Affairs is assigned the task of looking after the interests of non-indigenous citizens. Colonial native policy was directed at keeping indigenous Fijians in nucleated villages separate from people of other ethnicities. In late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they were perceived to be a dying race barely coping with introduced common European and Asian diseases such as influenza, measles and small pox, and the demands of social and economic changes9. The non-alienability of customary-owned land was stipulated under colonial law after about 10 percent of Fijis land was deemed to be free hold European settler owned property. This land was often some of the most fertile and accessible. The Fijian way of life was to be preserved and to be changed only gradually. Indigenous Fijians were to be ruled by their own chiefs in a separate system of administration and their daily lives were closely regulated. The use of indigenous Fijian labour for commercial agriculture, in the gold mine and for stevedoring purposes was regulated by the chiefs and the native, and later, the Fijian administration. Indigenous Fijians were forbidden to engage in commercial activities without the permission of their chiefs and colonial administrators (Durutalo, 1986; Bain 1994; Lal, 1992; Gillion, 1964). They were not permitted to take loans from commercial banks and private money lenders. Chiefs and later an increasing number of commoner ethnic Fijians who obtained education up to secondary level could work in the colonial administration as clerical officers, policemen and soldiers. They could also become members of the clergy in various Christian denominations, especially Methodist. Besides obtaining very modest rental income from lands that were leased to people of other ethnicity and from the sale of agricultural produce such as bananas and copra, their engagement in the mainstream colonial economy was limited. They were treated paternalistically by the colonial authority and perceived as a communal people ill suited for the hustle and bustle of the emerging market economy. Cooperatives were introduced amongst them with very mixed outcomes. Ethnic Fijians were not allowed to move freely in the colony without the permission of the administration and only for a limited time. The rigid policy of separate development of Fijis first nation people was maintained up till the 1960s.
With the contact with Europeans, their population had declined from an estimate of more than 300,000 to 84, 475 by the time of the 1921 Census.
9

10

There was not a single ethnic Fijian entrepreneur of substance when the country became independent. Meanwhile people of other ethnicities such as Indians and their descendents, Europeans, Chinese, Pacific Islanders including Melanesian labourers and their descendents, and mixed race persons had to survive in the emerging market economy. A racial division of labour evolved with Europeans taking managerial and supervisory positions in both the public and private sectors. They also were owners of larger businesses and plantations. The Chinese were merchants, middlemen and market gardeners. Indians and Indo-Fijians became workers, sugar-cane farmers and to a lesser extent cultivators of other commercial crops such as rice, and small businessmen. Indigenous Fijians lived in their villages and relied on copra and bananas. They were also employed in the gold mines. Melanesians often found themselves at the margins of society-landless, unskilled and poor. Mixed race people (Part-Europeans) often owned and/or worked in plantations and as skilled tradesmen in the sugar mills, engineering firms and in shipping. The landless among them also found themselves at the margins of colonial society. Indians and Indo-Fijians constituted the primary colonial other for their agitation for labour and political rights.

When Fiji gained its independence from the British, a small group of indigenous Fijian chiefs and their allies captured state power. Given the policy of gradual change and keeping ethnic Fijians in villages, they lagged in education, the professions and in business. Affirmative action (AA) policies, began in the colonial era were to be continued with renewed vigour in the post-colonial period. All the three post-independence constitutions of the country entrenched race, thereby defining citizenship rights and duties along ethnic lines. This included separate racial or communal representation in parliament which engendered electoral politics based on ethnicity. More often then not, the political party in power was perceived as responding to the needs of one ethnic group rather than to the needs of all citizens. Following the coups of 1987 and 2000, indigenous Fijian ethno-nationalism was accompanied by a number of race-based affirmative action programmes that promoted ethnic Fijians over citizens of other ethnicities. Discriminatory policies affected the poor of all communities and especially Indo-Fijian (Sriskandarajah, 2003). Since 2000 governments led by the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase were almost completely preoccupied by the perception that indigenous Fijians (Fijians and Rotumans) were disadvantaged compared to people of other ethnicities in Fiji society. Qarase and his Soqosoqo Duavata Lewanivanua Party (SDL Party) reasoned that previous coups and political instability were due to the grievance of indigenous Fijians about their disadvantage. In the government publication, 50/50 by 2020 subtitled, 20 Year Development Plan (2001-2020) For the Enhancement of Participation of Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans in the Socio-Economic Development of Fiji affirmative action measures were outlined in education, employment, equity in reformed state owned enterprises, participation in business, bank loans etc.

11

Indigenous Fijians were perceived to be lagging behind in education, in employment in the professions and in managerial positions, in business and more generally, in terms of equity in the economy. All these translated to indigenous households earning 30% less than Indo-Fijian households and even less than this percentage relative to European and Chinese Fijian households. While, in a general sense there are issues of horizontal inequalities in Fiji, the SDL governments use of data was very selective and fulfilled its agenda of patronizing and promoting indigenous Fijian interests. Such an agenda was also largely self serving10. Race-based affirmative action measures appear to have served an urban-based indigenous Fijian elite and not the rural majority that is used as the pretext for such policies. The state used race as the prime criteria for affirmative action policies, although disadvantage and exclusion is not entirely ethnic. In 2002, the post-coup government launched the Blueprint for the Advancement of Fijians and Rotumans and 50/50 by year 2020. These were to enhance the participation of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans in the Socio-Economic Development of Fiji. The social justice provision S44(1)in the 1997 Constitution which required parliament to legislate affirmative action for disadvantaged groups was deliberated distorted for race-based AA policies. Parity was sought in all classes of income, in public and corporate tenders (42 percent), public works tenders (54.5 percent), market rental for office space (53.2 percent, bus, taxi and rental car licenses (50 percent) etc. An economist commented at that time, that, it is hard to imagine how these targets could be achieved in a market economy without constraining competition, taxing production, inducing corruption, and incurring waste. (Chand, 2007, 30). Of 29 AA measures, 12 were for indigenous Fijians covering education, employment in the civil service, commercial loans and licensing, housing and land. None of these measures are means tested. In the period 2002-2007 between 70 to 95 percent of the Poverty Alleviation Fund was allocated to indigenous Fijians. A significant proportion also was given to ex-prisoners (Kumar, 2008, 217). These AA measures and other discriminatory policies have been brought to the attention of the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The Committee has required Fiji to address 22 areas of discrimination against ethnic minorities (CCF, 2008). Employment opportunities, promotions, scholarships and soft loans are largely provided through the prism of ethnicity. Class inequality and impoverishment which cut across ethnic lines are ignored by government and as a result little support is provided to those who are really poor of all communities. 3.4 Economic Processes and Disadvantage Fiji is a country of great inequality in access to economic resources and income. The economy is dualistic, both in terms of a monetized sector and a traditional subsistence
10

Virtually all senior members of the SDL government used affirmative action measures including in purchasing shares in the Fijian Holdings Ltd when they were hardly disadvantaged!

12

sector and also in terms of a formal and an informal sector. The formal sector comprises registered businesses and wage and salaried workers (both public and private) which occupies about a third of Fijis workforce. The informal sector with more than two-thirds of the workforce is much larger but heavily disadvantaged. The latter includes both semisubsistence and commercial agriculture. There are three main types of land tenure in the country and all of them manifest gross inequality in ownership/control and access. Freehold land which comprise less than 8 percent of Fijis land area has become extremely expensive and beyond the affordability of a majority of Fijis citizens. As a good proportion of this category of land is in coastal areas, comprise whole of small islands and are considered to be prime real estate, they can be bought and sold in the market by the highest bidders. What aggravates the situation for ordinary Fijians is that freehold land is available in the international market. As elsewhere in the region, foreign purchasers have been buying these lands at prices that are totally out of the range of locals. The second category of land which is somewhat less expensive than freehold land is land that belongs to the state, referred to as crown land. This land is now reduced to around 4 percent of Fijis land area. Besides the states own use, plots of crown land are used for farming and residential purposes. Both recognized as well as unmarked state lands have been targets of squatters11. The limited area covered by state-owned land means that there is little room for redistributive policies. By far the largest category of land falls in the category of native land or customary owned land. This comprises 88 percent of Fijis land area. Hundreds of land owning units or mataqalis owns this land. However, the amount of land owned by these groups varies considerably. There are mataqalis with large membership but which own very little land and three small land owing units that own large tracks of land. Some high ranking chiefs of land owning units in areas of commercial activities such as sugar-cane farming, forestry, tourist hotels and resorts, industrial and residential sites as well as localities that attract surfers, divers and eco-tourists have acquired sizeable disposal incomes. Most land-owing units, especially in the outer islands and the remote interior regions of the biggest islands own land that has little commercial value. Although 90 percent of the countrys land and virtually all its natural (marine and terrestrial) belong to indigenous communities, not all indigenous Fijians benefit from this lopsided resource ownership (see Figure 1). Many indigenous people have moved from their vanua12 and therefore do not have direct access to communal land and resources. In any case the ownership of land and other natural resources varies from one land owning group, mataqali to another. For non-indigenous citizens the matter of access and security of tenure to land and other resources are critical and in many ways unresolved issues.

11

Under the inherited British law, the state owns land up to the tidal water mark. Some of the marginal coastal zone land in urban and peri-urban areas has become residential sites of squatters. 12 Vanua denotes their physical environment, communal relationships, spiritual ties and sense of attachment and belonging to a locality.

13

Land Ownership in Fiji

Customery owned Freehold 8% 4% State owned

88%

Figure 1 : Chart showing land ownership distribution.

The Native Land Trust Board (NLTB), a statutory entity was established in 1940 to administer commercial leases for customary owned land on behalf of land owners. Apart from those customary lands that have been reserved for land owning group use, other lands are available for leasing. Commercial leasing of customary owned land includes residential, agricultural, business, tourist hotels and resorts and industrial leaseholds. In recent years with the politicization of land matters, NLTB began to obstruct renewable of agricultural leases that have resulted in the downturn of agricultural production and loss of income for both tenants and landowners. The non-renewable of leases has made the effective eviction of tenant farmers and their families. A class of indigenous chiefs control and benefit from land and other natural resources. In the mainstream economy, businesses take the lions share of returns from investment and workers are generally very poorly paid. 3.5 Socio-Cultural Factors The cultural groups that make up the country tend to be patriarchal, and ageist. Women, children and youth, persons with disability and sexual minorities are not treated equally and often face discrimination and exclusion. Women and youth discrimination can be seen in the ownership and control of land and other assets, in formal sector employment, in the level of youth unemployment and imprisonment, and their absence from decision making bodies. Women generally do not own property, especially land. A majority of women are not in gainful employment but are housewives and domestic workers. Hitherto in virtual all cultural groups, men were seen as breadwinners and although there is a history of women in the labour force, this standpoint has persisted. The fact that the labour market has not been growing also impedes womens economic participation. Family work which is so critical is not counted in economic statistics. According to Narseys analysis of the 2004-05 Employment and Unemployment Survey female 14

workers has a much higher incidence of poverty of 40 percent compared to 29 percent for males. He added that if unpaid Household Workers were to be included as workers then female poverty would be much higher at 75 percent compared to 33 percent for men (2008, ix). The mainstreaming of disable people has not occurred in any systematic way. Even in the current period, there is no systematic country wide assessment of disability. Data on disable people is not accurate. Although there are special schools for some categories of disable children and there have been erratic attempts at mainstreaming, the picture remains bleak for them. Much of the care and support are provided by the family members and charitable organizations. Sexual minorities, namely gay, lesbian and transgender persons keep a low profile to avoid negative attention. They are not well represented in the labour market and in decision making bodies. Certain types of employment such as hair dressing have attracted gay men. Discrimination and lack of training have meant that many of them are unemployed. Some are in the sex industry and subject to abuse by law enforcement agencies. 4.0 Status of Disadvantaged Groups Officially at this time in post-2006 coup Fiji there is no designated disadvantaged group, although the Department of Social Welfare continues to provide the Family Assistance Allowance to what are deemed to be individuals (and families) in dire need the poorest of the poor or destitutes. There are several disadvantaged and excluded groups in Fiji, both visible and invisible. 4.1 The Disadvantaged and Excluded The disadvantaged in Fiji include people of virtually all ethnicities; tend to be men, women, children, youth and the elderly, the disable, and sexual minorities. Ethnic and household disadvantages tend to hide intra ethnic exclusion and gender discrimination. Child and youth poverty is widespread but rarely discussed in the public domain. Sexual minorities (gay, lesbian and transgender) are also discriminated against and excluded. 4.2 The Poor The poor in Fiji defined as those households of 5 persons living below the poverty line of $164 a week (US$70) comprise both indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians. The intensity of poverty is greater among the later. Other minorities such as Solomon Islanders and Ni Vanuatu (Melanesians), Banabans, and mixed race people also are mostly poor and excluded. Being small in numbers they do not have any political influence and therefore remain invisible. They are generally landless and together with other minorities including descendants of Wallisians, they face insecurity of tenure.

15

The trend in Fiji has been a greater number of people falling into poverty in the last 30 years. Table 2 below captures the trend. One in eight persons was below the poverty line in 1977, one in four persons were below the poverty line in 1991 and one in three was poor in 2002-3. It is anticipated that if this trend were to continue by 2020, one in two or 50 percent will be living below the poverty line (Chand, 2007, 22). Table 2: Poverty Levels in Fiji, 1977, 1991, 2002/03 Rural Urban Ethnic Indo- Others Ethnic Indo- Others Fijians Fijian Fijians Fijian s % of 38.0 43.1 41.3 27.2 29.1 17.3 population in poverty Incidence of Poverty Populatio Population in n poverty in 1991 In (%) poverty 1977 (%) Population in poverty 2002-03 (%) Change in Poverty 1991 to 2002-03 (% points) +9.2 -1.0 +15.0 1991 $1,377 $45.9m

Total

34.4

Change in Poverty 1977 to 2002-03 (% points)

National 15 25.2 Urban 11.6 32.8 Rural 21.4 23.1 Year Poverty Gap Cost of Closing Poverty Gap

34.4 31.8 38.1 1977 $666 $11.5m

+19.4 +20.2 +18.5 2002/03 $2,616 not available

Source:UNDP and Govt. of Fiji (1997), Ministry of Finance and Planning (2006), and Kumar (2008).

It is noteworthy that inequality and poverty is intensifying over time and that the poverty gap has quadrupled. Table 3 below provides Fijis household income distribution in 2002 in decile groups with 1 being the lowest 10 percent of income earning households and 10 comprising the highest. It is noteworthy that whilst on average indigenous Fijian households earn less than households of other ethnicities, with respect to Indo-Fijian households in all the decile groupings they earn more but for the top decile. This comprises largely of business income earners. While intra-ethnic income distribution is generally unequally for all groups, it is especially unequal for Indo-Fijians and Others. This means that they have both the richest and the poorest households.

16

Table 3: HH Income per AE by ethnic Group (2002 F$) Deciles Average Household Income ($) Fijian Indo-Fijian Others 1 717 718 761 2 1122 1116 1151 3 1430 1429 1417 4 1740 1738 1727 5 2076 2080 2134 6 2458 2464 2442 7 2953 2955 2967 8 3595 3624 3631 9 4724 4690 4907 10 8787 10297 12634 Total 2958 3108 4628
Source: Narsey (2008:77).

All 719 1120 1430 1739 2080 2460 2954 3608 4723 9728 3094

While male headed households predominate among those in poverty, female headed households are increasing in number and suffer greater intensity of deprivation. This generally also applies to households headed by older and less educated persons. The income threshold identifying poor households denotes basic needs poverty as these households are unable to meet all their nutritional needs, shelter and costs relating to education and health. Individuals from such households are excluded as they are voice less and are not able to access information and opportunities. As indicated above geographically poverty is widespread in rural areas. Table 3 provides data on the distribution of households living below the poverty line in the four administrative divisions of Fiji. The Northern, Western and Eastern divisions are largely rural. Poverty levels are especially striking in the Northern and Western divisions. Table 4: Divisional variations in Incidence of Poverty ($33 pAE BNPL), 2002, F$ by % Divisions Central Eastern Northern Western All Rural 31 38 61 41 43 Urban 20 34 34 28 24 All 24 38 55 36 34
Source: Narsey (2008a), p58, Table 6.7.

The extent of food poverty is a measure of extreme poverty and hunger, as in Table 4 in Table 5 it is evident that the Northern division is especially prone to desperate poverty.

17

Table 5: Incidence of Food Poverty using $16 per AE Poverty Line by % and population Divisions Central Eastern Northern Western All Rural 6 8 17 9 10 Urban 3 0 7 4 3 All 4 7 15 7 7 Population in (000) Rural 6 3 18 15 42 Urban 6 0 2 4 12 All 12 3 20 19 54
Source: Narsey (2008), p58, Table 6.6

According to Narsey, the poorest ethnic sub-group was Rural Indo-Fijians of whom 44 percent were below the BNPL. By Divisions, the most in need was the Northern division with 53 percent of the population being in poverty, and a more horrendous 60 percent of Rural Indo-Fijians in the Northern population (2008, viii). A large category of poor households are made up by the working poor. As many as 60% of households are headed by people who work but whose earnings are below the national poverty line. These people also suffer job insecurity and do not belong to trade unions. They are relatively disempowered with little choice or freedom. They work in retail outlets, in restaurants and hotels, in manufacturing (garment and footwear), in agriculture (in coconut plantations and sugar cane farms), in mines, forestry and in private security firms. Unskilled and semi-skilled workers, and those employed on a casual basis (in the construction industry for instance) are also disadvantaged. Historically and in the current times, Europeans (both local and expatriates) and Chinese as well as those engaged in business have taken the lions share of the national income. They, together with Indo-Fijian businessmen (of disproportionately Gujerati ancestry) and high ranking indigenous Fijian government officials make up the top 20% of national income earners. Income per capita is extremely skewed. In Fiji, half of all households receive just over one-fifth of all income, while the other half receive almost four-fifths. The top ten percent of households receive 35% percent of the total income, while the lowest ten percent receive less than two percent of all the income earned in Fiji. Households within these poorest and richest groups also have big differences in income. There are also differences within households, with age and gender affecting what people eat and buy (UNDP, 1997, 3). Further, The top one percent of all households receive 53 percent of all business income, and the top 20 per cent of households receive 65 per cent of the wage and salary income (Ibid, 3). In the last decade the situation with respect to social stratification and income inequality has not changed at all, indeed more and more people have become vulnerable to poverty or have become poor (see Figure 2).

18

Figure 1: Average Income by Figure 2 : Average Income by Decile Decile

Thousands 40 30 20 10 0 20 40 60 80 % of Population 100 Fijian Indo-Fijian

Figure 2 : Graph showing household income distribution

The HIES in 1977, 1991 and most recently in 2002-3 have shown growing numbers and proportions of people falling into poverty. Over this period officially the proportion of households in poverty rose from 11% in 1977 to 25% in 1990/1991 and to nearly 35% in 2003. Both the Asian Development Bank study of 2004 and the analysis of 2002-3 HIES by Narsey (2006) show that more than 30 percent of Fijis people are below basic needs poverty line. Barr and Naidu have maintained that official poverty figures tend to use yardsticks that downplay the level of deprivation (for instance the basket of food items included in the food poverty measures). Their view is that close to 50% of the population struggle with varying degrees of poverty with the same proportion of households earning incomes below $8000 a year13. From Narseys analysis of wages over the 30 year period from 1971-1999, it is apparent that poverty wages are being paid to more than two thirds of wage earners in formal employment. The proportions of all wage earners below the 1997 Basic Needs Poverty Line increased from 31% in 1978 to 69% in 1989 and further to 71% in 1999, (Narsey, 2007a, viii). The absence of just social wages generally impacts on households negatively, but there are gender and age dimensions within households that adversely affect women and children (Chattier, 2008). There is also on-going feminization of poverty, which is reflected by the proportion of poor households headed by women. Narsey further states that the cost of closing the poverty gap has also escalated considerably. According to his findings the poverty gap increased from 11% of the total wage bill in 1984 to 27% in 1989, and 32% in 1999. The largest proportions of these adjustments were in the private sector. The manufacturing sector, and service sector, comprising wholesale, retail, hotels and restaurant accounted for about 90% of the total
13

The 2008 Budget has increased the tax threshold to $9000, adding another 500 households in the category of those not required to pay income tax.

Incom in $'000 e

19

adjustments. Narsey has maintained that since 1970 over a billion Fijian dollars has been transferred from workers wages to employers profits (Narsey 2007a). Thus, a significant poverty alleviation policy relates to the wages that are being paid currently to workers and how best to bridge the poverty gap. However, as indicated earlier, while earnings and livelihoods are fundamental to addressing poverty, poor people suffer from multiple disadvantages. A major factor in their predicament is the high incidence of inequality in Fiji (Brookfield, et al. 1978; Government of Fiji and UNDP 1997; Narsey 2006; 2007a; 2007b). Inequality and impoverishment are closely entwined. This inequality is based on ownership and access to assets such as land and other natural resources, as well as ownership of businesses. Lack of opportunities such as access to credit facilities, education and employment are the main courses of social exclusion. The other dimensions of deprivation in Fiji are lack of access to services such as safe water, transport, communication, and health. 4.3 Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Commoners Besides poor and excluded Indo-Fijians there are a number of other excluded groups, perhaps less well known because of their much smaller number and cultural constraints. These groups have been mentioned this far in the report as Melanesians (the descendents of Solomon Islands and Vanuatu labourers), Banabans and I-Kiribati, and Wallisians as well as mixed race persons. These groups suffer from large scale unemployment, lack of secure access to land and other natural resources and do not have any meaningful voice at the local and national levels. Joining them as relatively marginalized people are a large category of ethnic Fijian commoners in both urban and rural areas. The latter may have access to land and other resources but do not have effective representation in decision making. Those in urban areas may not have access to land but share with their rural kin a considerable degree of being disempowered. The communal or group basis of decision making together with the cultural proscription against open criticism of those in authority, especially their chiefs mean that the latter can behave in the most accountable ways. Several attempts at reforming the Fijian administration have been unsuccessful because of powerful vested interests unwilling to change the status-quo. 4.4 Women Besides the description of womens poverty, it is critical to stress the absence of women in decision making bodies at the local and national levels. In indigenous communities, women are not allowed to participate in decision making at the village and district levels. Although there is the occasional woman chief, the general rule is that men and especially chiefs make the decisions relating to community affairs. For Indo-Fijian and other minorities local community organizations, unless these are specifically womens associations, men predominate. At the national level, there is very limited participation by women in decision making bodies.

20

Given the facts of womens poverty, gender discrimination and the widespread incidents of violence against women, it is critical that womens voices are heard at local and national level decision making bodies. 4.5 Children, Youth and the Elderly Age captures three categories of vulnerable groups in the country: first children of the poor who are not going to school; second, unemployed and unskilled youth whose numbers are growing; third, the elderly who do not enjoy pension and/or welfare benefits reliant on family support. Children and young people, especially from lower income families are disadvantaged and excluded. According to a Save the Children Fund study, The limited financial resources and other hallmarks of poverty are the principal reasons why children fail to complete school. Low-income earners and casual workers in particular cannot meet the costs of educating their children, even though education in Fiji is tuition-free. For low income families with several children, the costs can be overwhelming (1998). The school drop out rates is high with as many as 74 percent of students admitted in the first year of primary schools not completing secondary school education. Save the Children Fund, Fiji point to the significant part played by poverty in depriving children and youth from obtaining basic education. The lack of education and training means that they do not have the necessary skills to obtain employment. Youth unemployment is quite high but difficult to capture as there is no systematic effort to register those seeking employment. In virtually all cases these young people are dependent on their families for support. The same applies to the pension-less elderly who constitute more than two thirds of those over 65 years. Fijis public pension scheme, the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) only serves those who were employed and who did not withdraw their fund on retirement. Outside of the political elite, grey power in Fiji is yet to be realized. It is not uncommon for the elderly to suffer a range of illness and disability but like those who have been disabled from a young age, their concerns are very marginal.

4.6 Disable People Mention has been made of disable people earlier in the report but any discussion of disadvantage and exclusion in Fiji needs to stress that they suffer from official, institutional and social neglect. Officially there has been very little done to integrate the disable in education and training, and in employment. They do not participate in decision making. Institutions such as schools, colleges and universities have failed to provide easy access and user friendly environment to those who are physically impaired. Socially too, public transport, paths, shops etc have not facilitated the disable. Culturally, there continues to be a sense of shame about disability which does not help in ensuring that disable people, particularly children receive the attention and care that they require.

21

4.7 Sexual Minorities Like the disable, sexual minorities are often regarded as an embarrassment and excluded. Gays, lesbians and transgender persons are regarded as abnormal and even sinful for not being like normal people. The majority indigenous Fijian Christian denomination, the Methodist Church which has hitherto had considerable sway in post-independence governments is especially opposed to the enjoyment of basic human rights by sexual minorities. 5.0 Policy responses to address identified forms of exclusion Although the Fiji is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and had a progressive bill of rights in its now abrogated 1997 Constitution, discriminatory treatment of women, children, ascribed status by birth and ethnicity has continued. Disable persons and sexual minorities also suffer exclusion. Neither women nor young people are heard in national decision making bodies. Table 6 below provides figures of government total expenditure and the proportion spent on social services for the year 1985 and from 1990 to 1995 and from 2000 to 2003. Table 6: Government Expenditure on Social Services 1985-2003 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 412.5 597.2 669.4 723.2 815.3 796.6 Total govt expenditure (F$m) 143.3 175.9 197.9 223.8 244.6 260.1 Total social expenditure F$m Social priority nexpenditure 1.7 1.6 2.9 2.3 1.8 Rural services 1.6 (F$m) 16.8 19.7 21.6 22.9 30.2 Water supplies 11.7 (F$m) 83.4 109.1 119.4 130.7 127.4 150.3 Education (F$m) 2.1 2.5 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.0 Social welfare (F$m) 33.3 45.3 49.3 59.5 65.6 70.4 Health (F$m) 0.6 0.8 1.6 2.3 1.5 Housing (F$m) 2.1 0 0 0 0.3 0.5 7.0 Poverty Alleviation Fund (F$m) 3 4 3 4 4 4 Aid (% of

2000 1114.5

2001 1222.2

2003 1304.6

285.5

310.7

390.6

1.4 42.3 151.9 2.41 82.3 1.4 43

2.4 50.8 162.5 2.63 89.8 1.6 48

1.3 80.5 193.4 3.38 108.0 2.0 54

22

GNI) Aid per capita (constant US$)

46

69

61

85

81

58

36

32

61

. Source: Gounder, 2007

Public expenditure in what is broadly defined as social services was highest in 1985 at 34.7 percent of governments total expenditure and has generally hovered around a third of the total budget in the 1990s and early 2000 period, the exception being the year 2000 itself. This was the year when Fiji experienced its third coup. The striking elements of governments social service allocation are the relatively large provisions for education and health, the low amounts to rural services, social services and housing, and the steep rise in the allocation for poverty reduction. From around half million dollars in 1993, the allocation under this heading has risen to $54 million in 2003. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of wastage of these funds and for other expenditures for social services, a disproportionate amount go into paying emoluments. Broadly speaking policy responses have been two fold: first, institutionalization of the commitment to end differential treatment and second, programmes designed to improve the status of the category concerned. These have had rather mixed success. A department of social welfare has existed from colonial department to address the plight of the desperately poor and elderly, adoption of children and probation matters. Originally, destitutes were almost entirely of Indian origins being landless and for the elderly having no one to look after them. A meagre destitutes allowance was given to them and old peoples homes were established in Suva, Lautoka and Labasa.

In the post-colonial period the Department of Social Welfare continues to look after very poor persons and families but the monthly Family Assistance Allowance which ranges from F$60 to F$100 remains rather small. The categories of recipients include chronically ill persons (25 percent), the elderly (24 percent), widows (23 percent), disabled (14 percent), deserted spouse (7 percent), single parent (5 per cent), and prisoners dependents (2 percent). These persons altogether number 26, 282 and are a very small proportion of nearly 35 percent of Fiji citizens who are officially living below the poverty line. They like others in Fiji benefit from subsidized health services and if they have access to piped water, relatively cheap water supply. Some may have received official approval for remittance of fees and other costs in schools for their children. Recipients of the Family Assistance Allowance receive dental (including dentures) and eye treatment (including eye glasses) at no cost. The Department also supports poverty alleviation programmes through grants and encouraging credit for the poor (especially women) via micro-finance schemes. Under the Qarase governments as much as 90 percent of the poverty reduction fund was allocated to indigenous Fijians and a disproportionate sum went to ex-prisoners (Kumar, 2008).

23

A number of NGOs and civil society organizations are actively providing support to the poor both through hand out and leg up measures. There is a Department of Women which is committed to promoting gender equality for women. This is done through policy advice, mainstreaming, advocating nondiscrimination, facilitating access to saving and credit schemes, reforming laws and campaigning against violence against women. This department is not well resourced and has struggled in implementing its objectives. A department of youth has also been created to address the disadvantages faced by young persons (15-24 years) who are out of school and unemployed. It supports training and motivation programmes, helps in organizing a Youth Day which is a public holiday and seeks to counsel young people. It has not been very successful in linking with the ministries of education, health, agriculture, etc to provide more holistic programmes. This far it has very little to show in terms of positive outcomes for youth in terms of generating livelihoods or creating social protection programmes for them.

There is a department of multi-ethnic affairs to address issues affecting minorities in Fiji. Its primary role has been to provide multi-ethnic scholarships for post-secondary education and training14. These scholarships are based on means testing of families and on merit. A majority of the recipients are Indo-Fijians. The children of other minorities equally poor often miss out on scholarships because of the competition. With respect to education more generally, there are costs such as bus fares, lunches, clothing, books and stationery which are often beyond the means of the poor. While some elderly receive the paltry Family Assistance Allowance, some others are fortunate enough to have been formally employed and on retirement, have the support of the Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) pensions. These pensions are very unequal as they are based on what the person earned during his/her working life. In addition, the largest category of the elderly who had been engaged as housewives and in agriculture and other self-employed activities do not receive any direct support from the state. They are dependent on their children for support. Such support too, can be extremely variable. The Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Squatter Settlement and Housing is responsible to oversee the provision of affordable housing. Officials have very ambivalent views on squatters with some empathizing with them and others regarding them as illegal occupants of other peoples land. According to Storey, It is estimated that some 80% of new housing stock has been built independently of official planning authorities. In essence Fijis booming urban areas are being developed autonomously, outside the control and authorization of government and planners (2006, 15). This has been the outcome of government supported organizations such as the Housing Authority and the Public Rental Boards failure to meet affordable housing.

14

There is a separate Department of Indigenous Affairs (previously Fijian Affairs) that provides non-means tested scholarships to indigenous Fijians.

24

The policy approach to squatters has three different aspects. First, policy promotes forceful removal of squatters by land owners, local authorities and police. Second, resettlement, denoting relocating to sites designated by local or central government. Third, upgrading of squatter settlement whereby the land is officially subdivided and registered with titles, roads and services such as water supply and electricity are provided and there are efforts to improve the housing conditions. These mixed approaches have been in place for the last fifteen years but have failed to cope with the rate of urbanization and escalating demand for affordable housing. 6.0 Triggers and Processes of Social Exclusion At the heart of the issue of disadvantage and exclusion is the enormous inequality in the ownership and control of assets and resources in the country as well as the inequality in access to opportunities. Besides class divisions, social markers such as ethnicity, gender, age, disability and sexual orientation are used to discriminate against citizens. Geographical remoteness from urban areas and other centres of economic and social activities also compromise access to opportunities and improved life chances. Land and natural resources are predominantly owned and controlled by indigenous owners and the state. Freehold land is now beyond the purchasing power of most Fiji citizens. However, land pressure and land values relate primarily to areas where there are commercial economic activities taking place. These have tended to be on the main island of Viti Levu. A class of chiefs actually has the power to determine access and what share of proceeds from the use of land and other natural resources would go to individuals in the owning groups. Land rentals are very unequally shared and women are not direct beneficiaries. In a general sense they do not have control in these matters. Mention has been made of the rather low wages being paid in several sectors of the Fijian economy by employers. The state in Fiji has failed to regulate labour standards and emoluments of workers. The business lobby has been exceedingly influential in both policy making and implementation. Women generally speaking do not own land and other property. Those over 40 years have not been as well educated as men and this means that their functioning in society has been negatively affected. This is reinforced by the patriarchal culture. Women until recently had no or very limited access to credit facilities. Established commercial banks did not consider them eligible for loans. The advent of micro-finance is only beginning to change this. The relative absence of indigenous Fijians as private businessmen and businesswomen is the product of 96 years of colonial paternalistic and patronizing policies supported by the chiefly hierarchy which actively discouraged them to engage in commercial enterprise as individuals. Cooperative ventures which received some support were not entirely successful.

25

They were encouraged to stay in their traditional villages, remain as subsistence agriculturalists and to maintain the Fijian way of life which meant unquestioning obedience to their chiefs and a class of native administrators. The scope therefore for commoner indigenous Fijians to extricate themselves from this straight jacket was not easy. Those who got some education in the colonial period became junior public servants, policemen and soldiers. Some also became members of clergy in the two major Christian denominations Methodism and Catholicism. After relative equality of employment in state institutions, from 1987 with the first military coup in Fiji that had as its goal indigenous Fijian paramountcy, national government stopped all pretence at being representative of a multiethnic/multicultural society. The state was captured by indigenous ethno-nationalists. With each coup carried out by a military that is 99.8 percent indigenous Fijian, this tendency was reinforced. In the contemporary period more than 70 percent of government employees are ethnic Fijians and in the higher echelons of government, including government ministers, the figure is more than 90 per cent. Mention has been made of the SDL governments race based affirmative action policies that actually discriminated against the disadvantaged of all races in the country. While there are professional and fair minded indigenous public servants, the perception and experience of people of other minorities, especially Indo-Fijian is that public servants discriminate against them in the provision of services. This can be shown clearly by the fact that since 1987 the proportion of indigenous Fijian recipients of Family Assistance Allowance for the very poor has jumped to close to 60 percent when HIES surveys show that intensity of poverty is greatest among Indo-Fijians and other minorities. Evidence is also provided by the unsatisfactory registration and even outright omission of IndoFijians during voter registration process. More generally, the lack of effective provision of information on state services and the criteria for accessing government support and subsidies is not helping the poor and the excluded. This is coupled with the inefficiency of the public service bureaucracy which in the case of social welfare is unable to expend funds to ameliorate the situation of the growing numbers of poor people. Sheer incompetence abounds. In Fiji rather than being public servants, civil servants behave as if they are masters of the public who control what people may or may not get. The element of discretion that they have is often abused through discriminatory and corrupt practices. Being deeply imbued with racial thinking, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity in daily practice is not uncommon. On urban streets in the main island, law enforcement agencies, especially the police have been know to abuse their authority in the treatment of street children, shoe shine boys, wheel barrow boys, gay persons and sex workers. This kind of treatment is a violation of fundamental human rights and seriously undermines the dignity of the human person.

26

Gay and lesbian minorities need to remain invisible because visibility draws upon them ridicule, discrimination and outright violence. There is considerable cultural intolerance towards them reinforced by the largest Christian denomination, the Methodist Church. There is also intolerance of and fear about those who are HIV positive and those who may be infected by the AIDS virus. 6.1 Relevance of Selected Indicators Accounting for Exclusion Physically manifestation of deprivation and exclusion include the widespread presence of sub-standard single room houses especially in squatter settlements. The increasing presence of street children, homeless persons and beggars also manifest both social breakdown and exclusion. Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) provide data on those living below the national poverty line and although there is debate on details such as what constitutes the basket of goods and essential items consumed by the poor, as well as the aggregate numbers of the poor, HIES do provide useful data for policy making. However, it is well known that household level data generation does not provide adequate information on intra-household inequalities and how does poverty affect women, girls, children and the elderly (Chattier, 2008). These are often the most vulnerable to deprivation. With respect to employment and the labour force, Census data and Labour Department surveys provide reasonable accurate information. Formal sector employment information provides aggregate employment figures and the industrial sectors of employment as well as information on ethnicity and gender. The relative absence of Indo-Fijians in the state sector and of ethnic Fijians in the private sector is evidence of exclusion along ethnic lines. Until recently, there were relatively lower numbers of ethnic Fijians in private sector management positions and in the professions. The non-renewal of agricultural leases has put many farming families of Indo-Fijian ethnicity in crisis, compelling them to move to urban areas including squatter settlements. Women continue to have relatively low numbers in the labour market. They are also largely under represented in managerial positions and on the whole receive less pay than men. They are also head larger numbers of households in poverty. They constitute the largest group of recipients of social welfare support, taking more than 60 percent of the Family Assistance Allowance. The lack of opportunity for out of school youths and the high wastage rate of Fijis educational system are evidenced by a large number of young ethnic Fijian young men in Fijis prisons. Close to 80 percent of inmates are indigenous Fijian men under the age of 30 years.

27

On the other hand, the insecurities faced by Indo-Fijians are partly shown by their higher numbers in psychiatric care and in suicide statistics. More than 90 percent of those committing suicides and attempting to take their own lives are persons of this ethnicity. There have been a number of suicides of older men which were directly linked to the expiry of their farm leases. People with physical disabilities are yet to be satisfactorily mainstreamed in the labour market. They too are discriminated and excluded, remaining largely invisible. The situation of the smaller minorities such as Solomon Islanders and Ni-Vanuatu and mixed race persons can be overlooked by national level data gathering. 6.2 Efficacy of Policy Responses In a general sense by this stage there is awareness of appropriate policies to address disadvantage and exclusion as well as of processes for arriving at more effective policies. While there is always scope for improving policy and policy implementation, three critical factors affect efficacy of policy responses. These are (a) environmental context, (b) human capacity and (c) budget support. In Fiji a critical factor in national level policy making has been the preoccupation with race or the politicisation of ethnicity and poverty to the detriment of broadly based and inclusive policy making. Dominant ethnic Fijian political parties and leaders have tended to be preoccupied with policies designed to patronize indigenous Fijians but in such a way that rank and file people ultimately do not benefit. This is best exemplified by 6 years of Qarase rule which pushed affirmative action measures for indigenous Fijians. These measures benefited the elite but did not uplift the majority of people of this ethnicity. Speaking at a workshop on anti-corruption, a former Director of Public Prosecutions and at that time a Judge of Fijis High Court, Justice Shameem made the following revelation about the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji: what was supposed to be an affirmative action program to advance soft loans to the disadvantaged indigenous population was in fact a slush fund for he privileged, many of whom were not indigenous and some of whom were cronies of people in authority (Fiji Times, 23 March, 2007) (cited in Chand, 2007, 32). The disadvantaged and excluded remained in their lowly position during this time with no support from the state. Chand goes on to state that Ratuva (2002) estimated that losses incurred as a result of affirmative action programs were around F$400 equal to some 30 percent of the 1987 GDP for the nation as whole.. (Ibid, 32). This approach excludes and alienates all other minorities. Race politics have triggered political instability and military coups which have undermined the well being of a majority of citizens. This racial preoccupation has also seriously undermined the development of a broadly based national land and natural resource use policy that would benefit all citizens and customary owners.

28

This approach also fails to give adequate attention to gender, age and birth as other determinants of life chances in Fiji which need policy attention. Secondly the state as the primary duty bearer needs to have able human resources to ensure effective implementation of policies. It is evident that a majority of public servants have insufficient capability to effectively attend to their duties and their limited competence is accompanied by unsatisfactory attitude towards service delivery. Departments of women, social welfare and youth, and housing are very poorly resourced in both human resource quantity and quality. It is rather sad to observe that although poverty levels have consistently increased in the country, the Department of Social Welfare is not able to spend its annual budget on poverty alleviation programmes. Thirdly, historically social development has not been given the priority that economic development (actually economic growth) has had. In recent years though, governments have allocated significant funds to education and health sectors which is most positive. Governments have not paid sufficient attention to providing funding support for land subdivision and housing. More problematically, a considerable amount of state expenditure goes to paying public servants (whose performance leave much to be desired) rather than to achieving outcomes for the excluded and disadvantaged. 7. 0 Recommendations to Refining Policies and Conclusion Broadly speaking, the best approach to making policy in Fiji is to move away from the straight jacket of racial thinking to broader and more inclusive approaches. These will entail targeted and time bound measures to uplift the situation of disadvantaged persons generally. Existing departments of social welfare, women, youth, multi-ethnic affairs, and housing need to be better resourced and monitored. At this time there is no policy relating to disable persons and sexual minorities. It will be relatively unproblematic to device good policies for disable people in a very short time span. However, because of cultural resistance, it will be more difficult to address the exclusion of sexual minorities15. Thus in Fiji, the major and pressing challenge to policy making so that the predicament of the disadvantaged and excluded can be addressed is to adopt the stand point that all citizens irrespective of ethnicity, gender, age, disability, geography, sexual orientation and birth status must be treated equally. This non-discriminatory approach should be accompanied by a willingness to make policies that will address disadvantaged and excluded families without regard to social markers. This policy approach will be in line with a number of significant Human Rights Conventions that Fiji has signed. Besides the policy approach, policy making should take the form of discussions with pertinent stake holders. The latter would include poor people and those agencies working
15

The purportedly abrogated 1997 Constitution provided equality and non-discriminatory protection to sexual minorities. The Methodist and other conservative churches have openly condemned this provision as promoting same sex marriage. A number of public demonstrations were organized which increased homophobia and struck fear in sexual minority communities.

29

among them; ethnic minorities; women and womens group; childrens agencies; youth groups; disable persons and sexual minorities. Various civil society organizations and NGOs working with the disadvantaged, vulnerable and excluded categories of the population can be involved in policy making. This process is likely to make policies more efficacious. Fiji has considerable potential for economic and social development which can improve the well being of its people. In recent years the quality of life of Fijians generally has deteriorated (Chand, 2007) and there is an urgent need for government to review its policies generally, and especially those relating to redistribution and social development. Inequality and social exclusion have increased and it is evident from this report that poverty has increased, women continue to be marginalized, as are ethnic minorities, children and youth, disable persons and sexual minorities.

REFERENCES: Abbott, D. and Pollard, S (2004) Hardship and Poverty in the Pacific, Asian Development Bank, Manila. Barr, K (2005) Making Poverty History: Different Approaches to Addressing Issues of Poverty and Development, ECREA, Suva. Barr, K (2007) Squatters in Fiji: The need for an attitudinal change, CCF Housing and Social Exclusion Policy Dialogue Paper (No.1), Suva. Barr, K. and Naidu, V. (2002) Comment on Poverty, Fiji Update, Suva. Brookfield, H.C., Denis, B., Bedford, R.D., Nankivell, P.S. and Hardaker J.B (1978), UNESCO/UNFPA: Population and environment project in the Eastern islands of Fiji, Islands Report 3, Taveuni: Land, population and production, Canberra. CCF/ECREA (2007) Struggling for a Better Living: Squatters in Fiji, EU funded video documentary, CCF, Suva. Chand, S (2007) 50/50 by 2020: poverty and redistributive politics in post-independence Fiji, Pacific Economic Bulletin, (22/2), ANU, Canberra, pp 22-35 Chattier, P (2008) The Capability Approach: Mainstreaming Gender and Poverty Discourses, Fijian Studies (5/2), Suva, pp 329-360. Chung, M (2006) No Fit State-Housing for Urban Poor in Fiji, UNDP, Suva. Durutalo, S.(1986) The Paramountcy of Fijian Interest and the Politicisation of Ethnicity, South Pacific Forum, Working Paper No. 6, USP Sociological Society, Suva. Firth, S, 2000, The Pacifc Islands and the Globalisation Agenda, The Contemporary Pacific, (2/1). Emberson-Bain, A (1994) Labour and Gold in Fiji, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gillion, K.L (1962) Fijis Indian Migrants: A History to the End of Indenture in 1920, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Gillion, K.L (1977) The Fiji Indians: Challenge to European Dominance, 1920-1946, Australian National University Press, Canberra. Gounder, R (2007), Strengthening Fijis national poverty policies in the context of regionalism, Pacific Economic Bulletin (22/2), ANU, Canberra, pp 91-103.

30

Gounder, R (2008) Economic and Social Sector Development for Poverty Reduction in Fiji, Fijian Studies (5/2), Suva, pp 237-262. Government of Fiji, (2008), Ministry of Women, Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation, Annual Report, 2007, No. 36 of 2008, Suva. Government of Fiji and UNDP (1997) Fiji Poverty Report, UNDP, Suva. Kaitani, M (2008) Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation Programs in Fiji: Are they Pro-Poor, Fijian Studies (5/2), Suva, pp 263-314. Khan, A and Khan, R (2008) Political and Economic Instability, and Poverty in Fiji, Fijian Studies (5/2), Suva, pp 315-328. Lal, B.V (1992) Broken Waves: A History of the Fiji Islands in the Twentieth Century, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kumar, S (2008) Poverty and Affirmative Action Policies in Fiji: Paradigmatic Fault Lines, Fijian Studies (5/2), Suva, pp 209 -236. Kumar, S. and Prasad, B. (2004) Politics of race and poverty in Fiji: A case of the IndoFijian community, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 469-486.

Mohanty, M. (2006), Urban Squatters, the Informal sector and livelihood strategies for the poor in the Fiji Islands, Development Bulletin (70), ANU, Canberra, pp 6568. Naidu, V. Barr, K. Lee, R. and Seniloli, K. (2000) Fijis National Poverty Alleviation and Eradication Strategy Framework, Draft Report for Ministry of National Planning and UNDP, Suva. Naidu, V. Barr, and Seniloli, K. (2008) Poverty Reduction Policies for Fiji, Fijian Studies (5/2), Suva, pp 293-314. Narsey, W, (2006a), Report on the 2002-03 Household and Income and Expenditure Survey, Vanuavou Publications, Suva. Narsey, W. (2006b) Just living Wages for Fiji: lifting workers out of poverty, ECREA, Vanuavou Publications, Suva. Narsey, W. (2007b) Report on the 2004-2005 Employment and Unemployment Survey, Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, Vanuavou Publications, Suva. Narsey, W. (2007c) Gender Issues in Employment, Underemployment and Incomes, Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, Vanuavou Publications, Suva. Narsey, W. (2008) the Quantitative Analysis of Poverty in Fiji, Vanuavou Publications, Suva. Narube, S 2006. Following the wake of Asias success: are we being left behind?. Presentation at the Pacific Economic Governance Agencies Seminar Series, held at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Suva, www.forumsec.org Pogge, T. and Reddy, S. 2002, How not to count the poor, [Online] 20 September-+ 2004, Available at: http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf. Prasad, B and Narayan, P (2008) Reviving Growth in the Fiji Islands: Is the economy sinking or swimming, Power point presentation, Fiji Update Presentation, July. Prasad, B., Reddy, M. and Kumar, S. (1998) Trends in Poverty, Employment and Wages in Fiji, Paper presented at the Centre for Migration and Development Studies, University of Western Australia, Perth.

31

Ratuva, S. (2000) Addressing Inequality? Economic Affirmative Action and Communal Capitalism in Post -Coup Fiji in Akram-Lodhi, A.H, Confronting Fiji Futures, Asia Pacific Press, Canberra, pp. 226-248. Reddy, M., Naidu_V. and Mohanty, M. (2003) The Urban Informal Sector in Fiji Results from a Survey, Fijian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 128-154. Robertson, R. (2006) Fiji Futuring: Connectivity and Development, Pacific Economic Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 22-35. Save the Children Fund Fiji (1998), Keeping Children in School, Suva. Sen, A. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sen, A. (1992) Inequality reexamined, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Knopf, New York. Sriskandarajah, D (2003) Inequality and Conflict in Fiji: From Purgatory to Hell? Asia Pacific View Point (44/3), pp 305-324. St. John Ives, E. and Naidu, V (2007) Foreign Direct Investment and Quality of Employment in the Tourist Sector: assessing the quality of FDI and the Fiji Islands using Sens capability approach, the Asia Pacific Economics Journal, 4/2, pp. 171-194. Sutherland, W (1992) Beyond the Politics of Race: An Alternate History of the Fiji Islands, Political and Social Change Monograph, 15, Australian National University, Canberra. Walsh, C. (2006) Fiji: An Enclopaedic Atlas, University of the South Pacific, Suva. Ward, R.G. (1997) Land in Fiji in B. Lal, and T.R. Vakatora (eds), Fiji In Transition, School of Social and Economic Development, University of the South Pacific, Suva. Yee, W.S. (2007) Building Fijis Agricultural Sector, 35th Fiji Institute of Accountants Congress, Sigatoka.

32